Expert Andrei Sushentsov: “The West has the idea that “we did everything we could,” but the Ukrainians “did not listen to good advice.”
More than twenty months have passed since the start of the SVO. The date of February 24, 2024 is just around the corner — a moment that will be separated from the start date of the special military operation by exactly twenty-four months. Where is everything going? And how is the world around us changing while Russia is absorbed in the situation in Ukraine?
In October of this year, two leading Russian international affairs experts, Vasily Kashin from the Higher School of Economics and Andrei Sushentsov from MGIMO, released a Valdai Club report they wrote, “Wars in a New Era: Why Large Armies Are Returning.” The title of the document is alarming. But even more alarming are his main conclusions: “The redistribution of power and influence in the world, the change in the balance of forces between major powers are becoming catalysts for extremely acute contradictions between them… The factors that forced great powers to avoid escalation in the past are weakening.”
In the “brave new world,” in which, like all other countries, Russia now lives, there is much less sunlight than in “not marvelous.”
The authors of the Valdai Club report predict that the great powers “for the first time since the 1960s will face a real threat of large-scale non-nuclear conflicts against a comparable adversary.”
Let me note that this forecast concerns not only and not so much events related to the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. We are talking about general global trends that did not begin with the NWO and will not end with the NWO.
What are these conclusions based on? How will Russia feel in the “brave new world of the future”? And what can you say about the progress of the SVO at the current stage? Here are the answers to these and many other questions from the co-author of the report — Dean of the Faculty of International Relations of MGIMO Andrey Sushentsov.
Dean of the Faculty of International Relations of MGIMO Andrei Sushentsov at the presentation of the report “War in a New Era.” Photo: valdaiclub
— Any analogy is conditional, but both crises — Ukrainian and Korean — are products of contradictions between two great powers, two global players — Moscow and Washington. As in the 1950s, the principles of shaping the future world order are now at stake, and the conflict is taking place against the backdrop of nuclear weapons. The latter keeps the United States from direct involvement in the Ukrainian crisis and minimizes the likelihood of vertical escalation.
Nevertheless, the strategic importance of US participation in the Ukrainian conflict is very great — massive supplies of weapons and military equipment, mobilization of allies to participate in these supplies, provision of intelligence data to Ukraine from the American satellite constellation and target designation, which form a single reconnaissance and strike contour between Kiev and Washington.
The United States assists in planning military operations in Ukraine, exerts large-scale sanctions and political pressure on our country, coordinates sabotage of critical infrastructure facilities and conducts cyber operations.
The United States covers and, in fact, sponsors Ukraine’s terror against civilians on Russian territory. This closes the possibility of cooperation between Moscow and Washington on previously common issues of combating international terrorism.
Essentially, the duration of the crisis is determined by the US assessment of the usefulness of Ukraine as a tool for causing damage to Russia. Therefore, the duration limitation consists of the deterioration of Ukrainian resources as a tool in the fight against Russia, the depletion of the supply channel for military equipment and weapons, the fatigue of Western societies from the Ukrainian crisis and the emergence of new points of tension in the world, requiring the United States to redistribute forces.
If at some point Washington realizes that Kiev is turning from an asset into a liability in foreign policy and that maintaining Ukraine is becoming disproportionately expensive, and strategic achievements are increasingly limited, the United States will look for another, cheaper way to damage our country. And then in Ukraine it is no longer possible to have a Korean scenario, but a Vietnamese or recent Afghan one, which we all observed.
—The Korean War is a special crisis. This is a conflict of the early Cold War era, when the rules of interaction between the Soviet Union and the United States were just being developed; indirect military confrontation between them then occurred for the first time. It was a kind of interaction laboratory in which the leaders and elites of the two countries developed rules of conduct in conflicts with each other.
The hot phase of the Korean crisis ended with the signing of a ceasefire agreement in 1953 (pictured). America is not averse to hanging the Ukrainian crisis in a similar way. But this does not entirely correspond to Moscow’s interests.
To this day, the United States remains the only country that has used nuclear weapons in a military conflict — with Japan. The second episode of its use could well be the Korean War. Then the commander of the US forces, Douglas MacArthur, was inclined towards this decision, and in order to prevent it, US President Harry Truman was forced to personally come to the region and replace the commander.
Another crisis that shaped the understanding of the rules of conduct of the Soviet Union and the United States in the era of nuclear weapons, became the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Perhaps this was the most important military-political crisis from the point of view of developing rules for interaction between the two countries.
There is currently no threat of nuclear war. For Russia, nuclear weapons are a means of deterring NATO states from directly intervening in the Ukrainian crisis. Let me remind you that such plans were actively discussed at the early stage of the crisis in the form of a project to create “no-fly zones” on the territory of Ukraine. Nuclear deterrence still works, but as before, this does not mean that nuclear war is imminent.
— Probably, the calculation was for a more independent position of European countries, without whose support the United States would not have decided to rely on a military solution. However, Europe showed miracles of resignation: it “swallowed” the destruction of its own energy infrastructure and missed the blow to the competitiveness of its economy in the long term.
I made the observation long ago that common sense and pragmatism are relative concepts, extremely conditional. Now in Europe there is a period of triumph of other principles — exalted ideological ecstasy, reaching the point of cutting off one’s limbs. Let's see where these principles will lead the European project. In the meantime, there is no need to talk about any strategic autonomy: Europe is on a “vacation from strategic thinking.”
Indeed, in 2022 unity between the EU and the United States spontaneously arose, but the situation is changing: arms stocks are running out, new ones are being produced — long and expensive, European countries have new priorities, and fatigue from Ukraine is growing. The recent revelations of Italian Prime Minister Meloni are just one sign of this fatigue.
In public, NATO leaders demonstrate an unwavering willingness to “support Ukraine for as long as necessary.” But, as the example of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni (pictured next to Zelensky) shows, in informal conversations they speak completely differently.
— Hallucinations are harmful, you need a sober look. Economic engagement with Russia has been one of the three key pillars of the EU economy since the early 1990s.
The US was counting on the collapse of Russia's economic potential by a third. The freed-up resources were supposed to be shared with the Europeans and Ukrainians in order to pay the cost of the conflict and prolong the “American Century.” Then it was planned to resume work with Russia on less favorable terms for it, so that it would continue to help maintain the competitiveness of the EU.
However, this did not happen: Russia confidently coped with the blow and entered the trajectory of new industrialization and economic growth, expanding the geography of its foreign trade. Under these conditions, it was the EU that deliberately became a key donor in favor of Ukraine and unwittingly in favor of the United States — through the purchase of weapons and expensive energy resources, the flow of investment and production from the European continent to North America.
At the same time, the EU lost its support in the form of cheap energy resources from Russia. Economic growth on the continent is stagnating — many in the EU now realize that the US is using them in the same way as Ukraine.
— The goals of the United States were to inflict a strategic defeat on our country. This meant eliminating it as a globally significant force and teaching a lesson to other rising states; this was the minimum plan.
The maximum plan was to change the government in Russia and ensure control over its economic potential. As a result, the United States planned to consolidate its hegemony for the entire 21st century, and then turn its attention to the confrontation with China, with a weakened and suppressed Russia in its rear.
None of these goals were achieved. Russia has begun to industrialize and militarize its own economy and increase its army.
Probably, the Russian army is currently the most experienced in the world in terms of the use of modern means of warfare. Following the results of the Ukrainian campaign, Russia will be no less, but a greater problem for the United States than before the start of the special military operation. The United States could not keep Russia from launching a military offensive, lead it to a quick defeat and protect Ukraine from casualties and destruction of its satellite.
Sanctions against Russia hit the West, the seizure of Russian assets abroad spurred the process of abandoning the dollar and Western financial infrastructure around the world.
— Since the spring of this year, American experts have been throwing around ideas about a scenario for freezing the conflict according to the Korean scenario. With a delay of several months, key Western media are now stating the futility of Ukraine's military efforts, despite large-scale Western military assistance. The idea is that “we did everything we could,” but “the Ukrainians did not listen to good advice,” waged the war according to their own speculative schemes and now bear responsibility for it.
For many in the West, the Ukrainian crisis is this is a media phenomenon, a “war on TV”, and victory in it can also be achieved in the virtual plane — through emphasizing or retouching certain events.
Now Ukraine is gradually leaving the spotlight. It is possible that the United States would like the front line to stabilize and new uncertainty to arise. However, this scenario implies that our country will be a passive observer and will not have the initiative. I see no signs that this will be the case.
— Without a deep settlement of the issues that necessitated the special military operation, no truce will be final.
< p>Russia’s conditions were announced at the end of 2021 and have not changed since then: among them are strict neutrality, demilitarization, denazification of Ukraine, the abolition of discriminatory laws adopted by the government on religious, national and linguistic grounds, refusal to honor pro-fascist elements stained by crimes against humanity , whom the current government of Ukraine has placed in the pantheon of national heroes.
Over time, new ones have been added to these Russian demands — Ukraine and the United States must take into account the new reality of the territories of Novorossiya liberated by Russia. The later the United States allows Ukraine to begin negotiations, the worse the situation will be for Kyiv in the sphere of control over territories.
— There is a structural restructuring of the world, caused by the weakening of the United States and the strengthening of other large countries that refuse to live according to the scheme proposed to them by the Americans. The relative weakening of a hegemon is not a unique event in world history. It was always accompanied by a long transition period, during which the world was shaken by military crises in different parts of it. The United States and Europeans have long lived with the feeling that “history is over”, “the world is now flat” and must live according to certain “rules” that were invented by the West.
However, this does not have any symptoms: large countries, even without setting the goal of crushing US dominance, are engaged in satisfying their own interests within the belt of their borders.
This inevitably leads to an increase in military-political tension and, in the worst cases, to breakdowns in military crises. Unfortunately, in most of these situations the United States does not act as a peacemaker, mediator or negotiator, but rather as an active actor, an instigator of the crisis, seeking to use its consequences for its own benefit.
This is another sign that that US hegemony is collapsing: Washington ceases to be an arbiter and becomes only one of the actors in world politics, albeit the most influential one yet.
< /p>
— Russian borders lie in East Asia: any escalation of the crisis around Taiwan, Korea, the East China and South China Seas will inevitably affect Russian interests.
Events in the Middle East have a great influence on domestic politics in our country. Plans to militarize Poland and turn it into a military bastion against Russia also contain conflict potential that could be realized in the next decade.
“Services are an important sector of the economy, but they don’t produce artillery shells.” They can be bought, and trading is a truly important service. However, there are not many production capacities for the production of shells in the world. What to do after all the warehouses available in the world are empty?
At the same time, the military-industrial complex in the West is in private hands: its potential is very significant, there are many mothballed capacities. However, to re-open them, predictability in orders is needed — this cannot yet be guaranteed.
As a result, we have a situation in which the readiness of the Russian industry to produce artillery shells exceeds the ability of all 50 countries that are in the formal coalition of allies of Ukraine and supply it with weapons.
— Modern Warfare — This is a high-precision war at a great depth of the front. Large concentrations of military equipment and manpower are quickly destroyed.
It can be said without exaggeration that the Russian army has the most successful experience in countering the reconnaissance and strike circuit with the participation of the United States. The Russian army has consistently adapted to all types of “miracle weapons” that were announced with great fanfare by the United States — HIMARS systems, drones, long-range missiles, etc.
Russian electronic warfare systems, jamming, target designation disruption, camouflage, radar , reconnaissance, air defense systems form a complex layered system, which reduces the effect of American advantage in the field of technical intelligence.
An integral part of the American system is not only the satellite constellation, but also reconnaissance aircraft operating over the territory of NATO countries and other systems deployed in Eastern Europe, which Russia does not attack.
The Russian government is now setting a priority task of multiplying the size of the Russian satellite groupings to increase the depth of destruction of enemy forces and means. The ratio of losses is multiple in favor of Russia — this is the main evidence of the effectiveness of the created system.
— Russia is indeed the largest country in terms of territory, its borders are the most permeable and in rare places protected by natural obstacles.
Ukraine in the early stages of the war actively took advantage of the permeability of the Russian air defense system, and previously Kiev managed to achieve targets in the central regions of the country. However, we are seeing less and less such episodes.
The Ministry of Defense is working on creating a comprehensive air defense system to cover “blind spots.” As I already said, the task is to create a powerful orbital constellation that will make it possible to diagnose threats in the early stages. There is a question about improving the civil defense system, which will allow the population to act clearly in the face of a possible threat of this kind.
— Indeed, Russia, Europe and North America are accustomed to the fact that the last 30 years have been relatively stable. However, this happened only in the indicated regions: neither in the Middle East, nor in Africa, nor in Asia did people experience anything like this. For them, the last 30 years have been a time of most turbulent events that have kept them constantly stressed. It was impossible to escape and hide from military crises and tensions.
In essence, the modern geopolitical crisis has become synchronous throughout the world. The situation in Europe, North America and Russia is coming into line with what is happening in other regions of the world.
What are these characteristic features? War and military tension are a constant background of life: citizens feel the pressure of information wars and provocations. In order to relieve this pressure, states are resorting to developing unifying ideas and ways of transmitting them. This, without a doubt, has an impact on the daily lives of citizens.
Countries will rely on creating their own industrial and technological base, strengthening the military industry, science, information and communication technologies, agriculture and transport. Jobs in these areas, a shift in attention from the service sector to the manufacturing sector will have an impact on the lives of citizens.
Finally, mass armies will again pay attention to the mass training system. This applies to education, healthcare and sports. In the initial stages, we see the Russian government taking steps in this direction. Veterans will undoubtedly become one of the pillars of society and will occupy a prominent place in various spheres of public life.
In general, we can say that the “brave new world of the future” will not be catastrophic: world politics is returning to the classical trajectory, which history has known for centuries.